ArticleCancers2022
Analysis of High-Risk Extramedullary Relapse Factors in Newly Diagnosed MM Patients.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term follow-up results of anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy combined with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with extramedullary disease.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring secondary extramedullary myeloma disease: a five-predictor scoring system with spotlight on double-hit cytogenetics.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Proteomic Alteration in the Progression of Multiple Myeloma: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extramedullary relapse of multiple myeloma (MM) is often resistant to existing treatments, and has an extremely poor prognosis, but our understanding of extramedullary relapse is still limited. The incidence, clinical characteristics, impact on the prognosis of extramedullary relapse, and the risk factors for extramedullary relapse in NDMM patients were analyzed. Among the 471 NDMM patients, a total of 267 patients had disease relapse during follow-up, including 64 (24.0%) patients with extramedullary relapse. Extramedullary relapse was more common in patients with younger age, IgD subtype, elevated LDH, extensive osteolytic lesions, extramedullary involvement, and spleen enlargement at the time of MM diagnosis. Survival analysis showed that extramedullary relapse patients had significantly worse median OS than patients with relapse but without extramedullary involvement (30.8 months vs. 53.6 months, p = 0.012). Multivariate analysis confirmed that elevated LDH (OR = 2.09, p = 0.023), >2 osteolytic lesions (OR = 3.70, p < 0.001), extramedullary involvement (OR = 3.48, p < 0.001) and spleen enlargement (OR = 2.27, p = 0.011) at the time of MM diagnosis were independent risk factors for extramedullary relapse in NDMM patients. Each of the above four factors was assigned a value of 1 to form the extramedullary relapse prediction score, and the 3-year extramedullary relapse rates of patients in the 0−2 and 3−4 score groups were 9.0 % and 76.7 %, respectively. This study suggested that extramedullary relapse was associated with poor clinical characteristics and poor prognosis in NDMM patients. The extramedullary relapse prediction score model composed of LDH, osteolytic lesions, extramedullary involvement and spleen enlargement has a better ability to predict extramedullary relapse than the existing ISS and R-ISS stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.